Russian Missile Strikes and US Policy Shifts: Analyzing Recent Developments

Recent Russian Missile Strikes on Ukraine

In the past 24 hours, Russia has resumed large-scale missile strikes against Ukraine. According to Ukrainian sources, approximately 120 Russian missiles and 90 Geranium-2 drones were used in the attacks. The Russian Defense Ministry described it as a "massive strike by high-precision air and sea-based weapons and strike drones on critical energy system infrastructure facilities."

The strikes targeted Ukraine's energy infrastructure as well as defense industry facilities. Multiple types of missiles were reportedly used, including:

• Kalibr cruise missiles launched from the Black Sea
• Kh-101 air-launched cruise missiles from strategic bombers
• Iskander-M short-range ballistic missiles
• Kinzhal hypersonic missiles

This appears to be one of the largest Russian missile attacks on Ukraine since August 29th. The strikes have reportedly caused significant damage to Ukraine's already fragile energy system, with 7 out of 9 of Ukraine's remaining nuclear reactors now offline according to some reports.

The resumption of large-scale strikes demonstrates Russia's continued ability to conduct such attacks, despite Western claims about depleted missile stockpiles. It also shows Russia's willingness to target critical infrastructure as winter approaches.

Context of the Strikes

These latest strikes come amid an ongoing Russian ground offensive across multiple areas of Ukraine. Reports indicate Russian forces have made territorial gains, including capturing areas north of the Kakhovka Reservoir and advancing on the strategic town of Avdiivka.

The combination of missile strikes and ground operations appears aimed at further degrading Ukraine's military and economic capabilities. If past patterns hold, we may see continued intense Russian missile strikes over the next 3-4 months.

Importantly, these strikes demonstrate Russia's vastly superior missile capabilities compared to Ukraine and its Western backers. The sheer scale and persistence of Russian strikes over nearly two years highlights the limited impact that Western-supplied missiles to Ukraine could have against Russian territory.

US Decision on Long-Range Missile Strikes

In a significant policy shift, US President Joe Biden has reportedly authorized the use of long-range missiles, likely ATACMS, for strikes deep inside Russian territory. This reverses previous US policy against enabling such long-range strikes on Russia proper.

The stated rationale involves the alleged presence of North Korean troops in Russian-held areas of Ukraine, though evidence for this remains limited. There are also claims of North Korea supplying artillery systems to Russia.

However, the Pentagon and other US officials have argued that such strikes would not meaningfully impact the war's trajectory. Russian military assets have largely been moved out of range, and Russian air defenses have proven effective against Western-supplied missiles.

So why make this decision, especially given the risks of escalation? Many analysts believe it is primarily aimed at complicating matters for the incoming Trump administration rather than achieving military objectives in Ukraine.

Potential Consequences

This decision crosses stated Russian red lines. Russia has warned it would consider such strikes an act of war and potentially retaliate against US, British, and other Western military targets globally.

We're already seeing signs of Russia providing advanced technology to US adversaries like the Houthis in Yemen, likely as an initial response to Western escalation. This new US policy could accelerate that trend.

The decision also opens the door for British and French long-range missile strikes on Russia using Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles. German Chancellor candidate Friedrich Merz has indicated he would authorize Taurus missile strikes on Russia if elected.

However, Russia has demonstrated the ability to counter these Western missile systems. None have proven as effective as initially claimed against Russian defenses.

Implications for US Politics

The timing and nature of this decision have raised eyebrows. It comes just after Biden met with President-elect Trump at the White House but reportedly did not disclose this major policy shift.

Many see it as an attempt by Biden to constrain Trump's options on Ukraine and Russia policy after taking office in January. This fits a pattern of outgoing administrations making significant last-minute foreign policy moves.

However, Trump's team has indicated they may reverse this decision after inauguration. Even without a formal policy change, a Trump administration could render it inoperable by withholding support and supplies for such strikes.

Potential US Policy Shift on Iran

Separately, reports indicate the incoming Trump administration is preparing to restart the "maximum pressure" sanctions campaign against Iran. This would mark a return to Trump's previous hardline stance after the Biden administration had somewhat eased pressure.

The stated goals would likely include ending Iran's nuclear program and support for regional militias. However, Iran weathered the previous pressure campaign without fundamental policy changes.

Some key factors to consider:

• Iran's position is stronger now as a BRICS member with closer ties to Russia and China
• Previous sanctions failed to achieve stated US objectives
• Renewed pressure could strengthen hardliners in Iran arguing for nuclear weapons development
• The risk of military escalation remains if economic pressure fails

Overall, this approach carries significant risks without a clear path to achieving US goals regarding Iran's policies.

Conclusion

The combination of renewed Russian strikes on Ukraine, US authorization of long-range strikes on Russia, and potential renewed pressure on Iran paints a concerning picture. These developments risk further escalation on multiple fronts without clear strategic benefits.

The apparent use of major foreign policy decisions for domestic political purposes is particularly worrying. It threatens to constrain future administrations and could lead to unintended consequences.

As tensions rise, the need for genuine dialogue and de-escalation becomes ever more critical. However, the current trajectory suggests we may instead see continued escalation and heightened risks in the coming months.

Careful diplomacy and a focus on realistic, achievable objectives will be essential to navigate these complex challenges. Otherwise, we risk sleepwalking into even more dangerous confrontations with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Article created from: https://youtu.be/xRMWRMtVhlE?feature=shared